Also, is there any relevance to the fact that the man is gay? The Daily News seems to think so. The guy, on the other hand, seems to think the 9/11 terror attacks are relevant to his need to be nude on the beach with his dog.

Well of course this has more merit, and wider implications, than the Plame/Wilson lawsuit. That lawsuit is basically about a bunch of bureaucrats (I include Plame, Wilson, Rove, Libby and Cheney in that) having an office squabble.

But the case with the man wanting to sunbathe nude with his dog? This could affect the lives of MILLIONS, no, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans not just now, but for generations to come!

Don't get me wrong, but the need to be nude with one's terrier has aspects of gayness to it. I'm not talking about anything unnatural. I'm not saying he needs any more than to be nude wiht his terrier. I'm saying that specific need seems arguably gay to me. I would expect it, all things being equal, more from a gay friend than otherwise.

From the story:"Michael Reynolds, the superintendent at the seashore, said he was taken aback by the lawsuit because there have been no complaints about DelCore or his dog from other beachgoers, nor has the bodybuilder been threatened with enforcement action."Poor naked gay man just isn't getting enough attention, it seems.

After all, if one is going to climb on the substantive due process train, one gets aboard a runaway train because one likes where it has been, yet does so with no idea where that train is going, how it will get there, or any way to say "this is my stop." If light of the court's continual clinging to substantive due process jurisprudence, it makes perfect sense to say that this idiot's desire for attention is constitutionally-protected; after all: "the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints [by government.]"

This man's claim is no more or less ridiculous than any other substantive due process claim (although since all others are, by definition, absurd, that avails him naught).